I have been following the Gergis et. al 2012 paper as soon as some gleeful advocatesshared the latest hockey stick: Gergis et. al 2012. Only recently, did Steve McIntyre explore the paper, and when he asked for the data that Joelle Gergis used in her paper, he got this snarky response:

Mr McIntyre

We have already archived all the records needed to replicate the analysis presented in our Journal of Climate paper with NOAA’s World Data Center for Palaeoclimatology:

While the vast majority of the records contained in the full Australasian network are already lodged with NOAA, some records are not yet publically available. Some groups are still publishing their work, others have only released their data for use in a particular study and so on.

The compilation of this database represents years of our research effort based on the development of our professional networks. We risk damaging our work relationships by releasing other people’s records against their wishes. Clearly this is something that we are not prepared to do.

We have, however, provided an extensive contact list of all data contributors in the supplementary section of our recent study ‘Southern Hemisphere high-resolution palaeoclimate records of the last 2000 years’ published in The Holocene (Table S3):

This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results.

It was later revealed that the Gergis et. al paper suffered from the same flaw that the Mann et. al and other hockey stick papers had- some of the proxy series were flipped upside down to generate the hockey stick that Gergis et. al desperately wanted.

A sciencetific study made a mistake....They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me. Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.Works for me...

A sciencetific study made a mistake....They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me. Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.Works for me...

So flipping the proxy upside down to produce a hockey stick shape is not suspicious at all?

All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.

Blatantly false.

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A sciencetific study made a mistake....They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me. Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.Works for me...

So flipping the proxy upside down to produce a hockey stick shape is not suspicious at all?

The measured temperature data over the last 150 years will give a hockey stick. There should not be any proxy measurements required during that period.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.

So disprove that 94% of the MWP studies evaluated by CO2 Science show that the CWP was as warm or warmer than the MWP. You are just offering mere speculation, which is not a scientifically robust argument.

What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.

So disprove that 94% of the MWP studies evaluated by CO2 Science show that the CWP was as warm or warmer than the MWP. You are just offering mere speculation, which is not a scientifically robust argument.

Prove the studies actually say what the CO2 science interpretations say they do. You are offering nothing of substance in any scientifically related argument when you use an unknown third party interpretation as "evidence".

Give us the dates for which we can consider the MWP and the minimum length of time the temperature has to cover then you can compare the data from the actual papers to see if there is any real evidence.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Two adaptations from two separate studies from the same cave in South Africa. Notice the MWP header is not consistent in the period implied. Also note the vast difference in the temperature and time period between the two. I thought the MWP was supposedly a long period of warming during a specifi time frame, not a period of peaks and valleys that moves with each graphed adaptation or interpretation.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.

Blatantly false.

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

I find this very very difficult to believe.

Do you have the source papers?

Because the vast majority of temperature reconstructions that I am aware of have the current warm period as the warmest. (That's the instrumental temperature record in black that goes to 0.5°C warmer than any point in any reconstruction.)

All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.

Blatantly false.

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

More junk from "co2science.org"Here is a typical comment from the site

Quote:

Because science tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet, and because even the best climate models are manifestly incapable of delivering what we require of them, i.e., correct climate forecasts.

The author means by "correct climate forecasts" one that would suit his view of the world.

All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.

Blatantly false.

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

More junk from "co2science.org"Here is a typical comment from the site

Quote:

Because science tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet, and because even the best climate models are manifestly incapable of delivering what we require of them, i.e., correct climate forecasts.

The author means by "correct climate forecasts" one that would suit his view of the world.

Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.